Ex Parte Tucker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2015

12246695 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/246,695 10/07/2008 Peter T. Tucker 9457-122 6581
79207 7590 06/02/2015
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
BARAKAT, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2681
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2015 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER T. TUCKER
____________

Appeal 2013-004326
Application 12/246,695
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-004326
Application 12/246,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 4–8, 11–16, 18, and 19, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
4. A patch cord for a communications patching
system, comprising:
a cable;
a connector secured to an end of the cable; and
an RFID tag associated with the connector, wherein the
RFID tag is configured to transmit information stored
therewithin when the RFID tag is energized, and wherein the
RFID tag comprises a single axis accelerometer that is
configured to, in response to the RFID tag being energized,
determine any of four orientations of the RFID tag relative to
the single axis, and generate an RFID tag orientation signal,
wherein the four orientations of the RFID tag relative to the
single axis includes facing up, facing right, facing down, and
facing left.

Prior Art
Stilp US 2004/0212493 A1 Oct. 28, 2004
German US 2006/0148279 A1 July 6, 2006
Smith US 2007/0182578 A1 Aug. 9, 2007

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 4–8, 11–13, and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over German and Smith.
Appeal 2013-004326
Application 12/246,695

3
Claims 14, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over German, Smith, and Stilp.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason
to combine the teachings of German and Smith absent improper hindsight.
App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellant contends adding the accelerometer of
Smith to the connector of German would make no difference in how the
connector is inserted into a connector port. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner
finds using the accelerometer of Smith when connecting a cable of German
allows one of ordinary skill to determine orientation of the connector
without direct visual confirmation. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Using the RFID tag with accelerometer as taught by Smith
(Title) as the RFID tag in the patch cord connector of German (Abstract)
yields the predictable result of determining the orientation of the connector
as taught by Smith (Abstract).
We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 5–
8, 11–16, 18, and 19, which fall with claim 4.
Appeal 2013-004326
Application 12/246,695

4

DECISION
The rejection of claims 4–8, 11–13, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over German and Smith is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over German, Smith, and Stilp is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED
mls